Tag Archives: Psychology

IVAS eXPeriment

Thirty-five people took part in the Immersive Virtual Architecture Studio (IVAS) between 26th February and 9th March 2018. The experiment was simply presented as a room scale VR experience where you would have to solve a few jigsaw puzzles inside different rooms. This was one of the most important and exciting parts of my PhD research project. Follows a short explanation of context, purpose and approach.

Soapbox VR room running IVAS with Dean.

Context

Homo Sapiens’ biggest achievement, to a certain extent, as a global civilization, has been to transform and adapt the environment to his needs. The main strength to achieve this outcome is Sapiens “spatial awareness”: the ability to perceive and make sense of his spatial environment and the intrinsic sense of agency that it affords. Sapiens developed this ability following different trait, the most recognizable one being known under the field of “architecture”. For more than five thousand years, using bricks and mortar, he built places to fulfill all the different functions required by society: services, religions, politics and other cultural activities. In the 21st century, Virtual Reality (VR), an inherently spatial technology, offers us the perfect medium to test and apply some architectural principles developed over the centuries to structure and navigate today’s overwhelming digital landscape.

Purpose

The built environment has a significant effect on humans behavior in the physical world (1). How does that translate in VR? The overall aim of this project is to establish the foundations of a framework to support the design of Immersive Virtual Environments. Such a framework will have benefits not only for scientists but in every field VR is disrupting such as game design, industrial design, data visualization and learning applications to name just a few.

Approach

This study is exploring ways to evaluate how different architectural elements affect human’s spatial cognition performance using the IVAS. The following steps will be to apply those findings to support specific cognitive tasks for specific users. This particular iteration of the project is looking at two architectural elements arranged following two spatial characteristics. Those fours conditions are tested using three cognitive tasks. Follows a short description of the setup.

Physical Space – Hardware – Mode of Interaction

For most of our history, natural movement has been the only way to navigate our environment and to experience “architecture”, therefore, it is the primary mode of interaction used in this experiment. To accompany this principle, a room-scale VR environment is set up with a minimum of 9 sqm (3mx3m) of navigable space. In this instance, the IVAS exp. happened in two different rooms, at two different sites: Goldsmiths, Hatcham house, 1 and Soapbox, Old Street 68.
The second mode of interaction is the VR system which is composed of an HTC Vive head-mounted display with two wireless hand-held controllers allowing together 18 degrees of freedom (18 DOF) of movement. The headset is tethered to a powerful laptop that runs the simulation.

Prt Screen from Unity running IVAS A1

Virtual Space – Software – 3D Models

The room with approximately the same dimensions as the physical room is modeled in 3D and will serve as the base for the different conditions (architectural scenes) that will be tested. All other 3D assets are modeled using 3Dsmax before being imported in Unity3D where the interactivity is programmed.

Spatial Conditions

Two architectural elements, wall and columns, were studied following two spatial characteristics: enclosure and complexity (3)

  • A1 : Close Columns
  • A2 : Open Columns
  • B1 : Close Walls
  • B2 : Open Walls
Layout of the different conditions.

Three Tasks involving Spatial Cognition

Solving a Jigsaw Puzzle

This task was design to encourage participants to navigate the space in search for all the items needed to solve the puzzle. A stopwatch was encouraging them to do so as fast as possible – a way to measure performance. VR allows to easily track user’s movement: time, position and rotation. Everybody seems to have enjoyed solving the jigsaw puzzle and were very focused on the task. I had to remind them to explore the space before starting the task. Once the puzzle was solved, the participant was automatically transferred to a transition area where he had to rate two experiential qualities.

Rating of Experiential Qualities (REQ)

The spatial analysis can only be meaningful in regards to an equivalent evaluation from a human experience point of view. Evaluating “lived space” (2) can be done by asking participants to rate their experience with each spatial characteristics. This task brings the qualitative human evaluation into the equation. Using a semantic differential scaling technique, subjects were able to differentiate their appraisal using a five-step Likert-like scale. The rating categories were selected to represent previously mentioned properties: enclosure and complexity.

Perspective Taking Task (PTT)

Once out of the IVAS, participants had to answer a few questions on the online questionnaire before completing this last cognitive task. The main purpose of this task is to measure the memorability of each scene (4). It consists of a sequence of 16 pairs of images. For each pair, one of the images was taken from one of the explored room, the other image was taken from a room not visited. The participant had to identify which image relates to one of the scenes he had experienced.

Perspective Taking Task – All the views
Perspective Taking Task – Pair 03
Perspective Taking Task – Pair 11

Space Syntax Design Analysis

The design analysis using Space Syntax approach will give us an objective measure of each considered spatial characteristics. By combining both “Isovist” and “Visibility Graph” techniques, we obtain a number of measurands (3). In this case, we will be using the following measurands to represent the best predictor variables for the spatial characteristic considered:

The spatial qualities and their related measurands are :

  • Enclosure: “isovist openness” and “jaggedness”;
  • Complexity : “number of vertices”, “vertex density”, “roundness” and “jaggedness”;

Early Observations

A quick glance at the data shows that participants experienced spatial complexity as intended in the scenes designed with the columns. Their average best performance comes out of the scene with the closest room with columns. However, the feeling of openness doesn’t seem to be related to the number of windows in the room. One explanation for this is most probably because there was a texture on the glass. It wasn’t completely transparent. A participant even said: “I didn’t realize that there were glass panel walls!”
This is just a short intro of the kind of conclusions I am working on. This experiment is bringing plenty of good data to dig into, some with positive results some negatives. I have a few pages to fill with that discussion (check further posts).


References:
  1. Arthur E. Stamps. Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1):1–16, 3 2004
  2. Annemarie S. Dosen and Michael J. Ostwald. Lived space and geometric space: comparing people’s perceptions of spatial enclosure and exposure with metric room properties and isovist measures. Architectural Science Review, 60(1):62–77
  3. Jan M. Wiener and Gerald Franz. Isovists as a Means to Predict Spatial Experience and Behavior. pages 42–57. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005.
  4. Barbara Tversky and Bridgette Martin Hard. Embodied and disembodied cognition: Spatial perspective-taking. Cognition, 110(1):124–129, 1 2009.

 

Report: The VI International Conference on Spatial Cognition 

birds

This article was originally posted at Goldsmiths Department of Computing’s Blog here.

PhD student Pierre-François Gerard reports on the International Conference on Spatial Cognition, which took place in Rome on 6-11 September 2015.


pfgIt felt good to leave the already cold London weather early this September and land in Roma’s Mediterranean climate for a whole week of International Conference on Spatial Cognition. What a city, what a history! My daytime was packed with talks and lectures, each giving a different take on situated cognition. My nights were dedicated to applying all those theories along hours of walking and navigating this old city filled with memories.

The conference venue was an interesting building to start with. Situated in an old neighbourhood east of Termini Station, part of Sapienza – Università di Roma, the faculty of psychology was barely recognisable from the street. However, once you got inside, the space was quite remarkable. There was this wide and long mildly inclined ramp punctuated by little steps distributing students and conference participants alike to the four levels of rooms and auditorium. At the back, there was a large court yard to share thoughts and eat lunch in the sunlight.

Keynote speakers – Scientific Method

The main keynotes were given on the top floor. Arrived only on Tuesday afternoon, I missed Monday keynote lecture with Kevin O’Regan: Constructing space: A theoretical basis for how naive artificial or biological agents can construct spatial notions . A couple of early friends informed me that although O’Regan is a quite prolific author, this presentation wasn’t that great. There is plenty to catch up online anyway. On Tuesday was Vittorio Gallese important keynote on Embodied Simulation and the Space around us. He explained the main concept of inter- and extra-personal space used by a lot of authors that week.

The first keynote I attended was quite enlightening on the scientific methodology developed by psychologists. Yan Bao, associate professor from Peking University, explained step by step what is “attention” and how does it work through human’s eyes. To do so, she scientifically answered one very specific question by doing one very specific experiment. From there, a new question arise that lead to the next experiment that will bring a new answer and suggest the following question, and so forth. She presented a cascade of 12 studies based on a cueing task, mainly to demonstrate the effect of “Inhibition of Return”; the ecological significance of this mechanism being that it favours novelty and curiosity.

The next keynote, Inter-subjective relations in lived space and instituted space was given by Shaun Gallagher, an interesting fellow American philosopher. He is actually working with astronauts, trying to understand their feelings in space travel using Virtual Reality. Where it really pumped me up was when he started to talk about how architecture shapes our experience and how we can modulate the way we are experiencing things by modifying our environment. He also coined a powerful concept which is the “affordance landscape”. I will follow him closely.

minority

My favourite lecture was given by Sergei Gepshtein on Solid field of sensitivity: Perceptual structure of immersive space. He works with two well known people, Alex Mc Dowel and Greg Lynn. Alex Mc Dowel was the art producer behind the Minority Report interface and many other film productions. Greg Lynn represent the avant garde of the digital turn in architecture in the nineties with the concept of folding and topological geometry. After a quick reminder of what is the “perspective” we’ve been living by since the 15th century (thanks to Alberti’s “The Pictura”), Gepshtein went on to explain how he is working to change this paradigm; to get past the restriction of this portable window. Their project uses different techniques to go from cinema to immersion by creating maps that can be transferred in solid space: sensory mapping, multi modal design, adaptive smart environment, mixed realities are just a few of the concept mentioned during this really exciting lecture.

Talks – eclectic topics

Every day started with three simultaneous symposium. A lot to choose, from a large panel of research. A variety of fields were represented: psychology, neuroscience, computer science, architecture, social studies and philosophy, to name just the main ones.

Starting from a philosophical point of view to explain “space concept”, T. Holichka defined what is a virtual place at the confluence of possible worlds and fictional worlds. The importance of the concept of affordances (Warren 1984) and places were then discussed by Jonietz & Timpf from an GIS (Geographic Information System) perspective. After that, some phenomenology were involved by Nitsche to analyse impressionist paintings with the notion of distancing instead of understanding. The main question really was: “How do we perceive space?” which brought the notion of situated knowledge.

The next talk centred on a potential new field of research which I am relating to – Computing Embodied Architecture. Prof. E. Ackerman’s talk on developing more appropriate self-directed learning space for children definitely pulled some strings. Then came Paloma G. Rojas, student from MIT, with a methodical approach applying computational model to analyse our perception of space; best hint so far directly related to my own research.

Wednesday’s symposium on Body & Space, explored the concept of peripersonal space and relative perception through the lens of Virtual Reality (VR). You can find more about this research by searching for the CS-IVR Lab, the Immersive Virtual Reality Laboratory and for Mirage Lab, the Multi Sensory Illusions Laboratory.

Thursday’s theme was Navigation. Researchers presented studies exploring how blind people, children, men and women were using different mechanism to find their way around.

On Friday, we returned to the theme of Embodied Space in Architecture with a neuroscience twist. Peri and extra-personal space were still leading the dance backed up with neurophysiological correlations. One specially engaging presentation on central and peripheral vision by Rooney, brought a striking point on how vision drives two different type of embodiment: projected and extended. The last talk I followed, before having to catch the train, was given by Van der Ham, on human navigation in real and virtual environments, and the role of locomotion. The experiment she presented showed the closest settings to mine: participants have to remember their way inside a 3D virtual environment with landmark images hanging on the the wall.

To summarise, an eclectic field of research was represented at this conference. A variety of presentations were showing a large range of disciplines to study the relation between humans and their surroundings and how we are perceiving our body into space. Embodiment, inter and extra -personal space, affordances and places are the main concepts embedded in the body of those researches. VR is used throughout those studies. It is a fantastic tool of research that allows to approach real world situations yet offering a wide range of control, flexibility and scalability on the designed VEs.

Posters – People from all over the world

My poster made a good impression. It gave me the opportunity to start a few conversations with different people from all over the world: Columbian, Swedish, Turkish, French and a couple of Italians. Each had their own take on my project, so being here really brought me a lot of value and new perspectives on what I am working on.

Overall, I had a really great experience. From a scientific point of view, it made me realised how narrow the field of research has to be to conduct valid case studies that answer one specific question at a time. Psychology research definitely set definitely the measure on that matter, by processing one variable in a very controlled environment. However, a new trend is to take research much closer to real life situations. It also brings a lot more data to manage. That is where computation power become really handy for two mains reasons: on one hand, computational models help to simulate systems and behaviours, on the other hand, visualisation engine and Virtual Reality help simulate close to real life environments to work with.

The interdisciplinarity of research also aroused my attention – psychologists trying to make sense of architects’ approach about space perception and embodiment, computer scientists questioning behavioural methodology, or even psychologists between themselves – these were all common discussions during the conference. Only a few presentations were really cross-disciplinary; this is a very interesting subject way easier to debate than to put into real practice.

Most of all, it is the excitement and the enthusiasm of those dozen of researchers from every corner of the earth, supported by the strong foundations of Romans walls and history, that I will carry along my own pursuit of adding a stone to existing knowledge.


Pierre-François Gerard is studying for a PhD in Computer Science

This Post has been published on the Goldsmiths Computing Department Blog on 23/10/2015

Spatial Intelligence for who?

BayaParkBirdsNestSales
Enactive space.

I am working on this paper : “Spatial Cognition in the Virtual Environment“by Kimberley Osberg. Published in 1997, it doesn’t bring anything new, although it offers a practical way of applying constructivist theories to help a group of children with spatial processing difficulties. Before getting into the experiment details, the author describe a broad range of research concerned with the positive relationship between spatial exercise and spatial processing skills.

With a background based on Piaget’s stages of childhood development, the following paragraph makes an accurate description of one of the main reason that drive my research: the reduction of our spatial realm in the learning environment. She wrotes:

Howard Gardner (1993) is also a strong advocate of “spatial intelligence”, and its relationship to other intelligences and cognition. In Gardner’s view, spatial ability and spatial cognition are the basic building blocks that a child needs in order to develop higher level thinking skills, specifically those that complement verbal processing skills. As we move closer towards being an “intellectual” rather than an “enactive” (Bruner, 1966) learning society, the opportunity and necessity for practice in the spatial realm has been minimized. However, fully half of the population, when tested, indicates a preference for visual rather than verbal learning style. (Kirby et al, 1988) Learning style preference has been given little attention with regard to curriculum or assessment development. Gardner’s answer is to re-integrate development of all of the intelligences that he has identified back into the curriculum, in appreciation of a holistic approach to both individuals and the education process.

XP00 : answer

Dallenbach 1951 answer
Dallenbach 1951

Dallenbach image is actually a photo of a cow. Now that you have seen the cow,  you will never be able to watch this image without seeing a cow anymore.

XP1.0 : Control Test, A Memory Card Game

Can you remember the sequence of 9 random given playing cards?

The next experiment is a very simple memory card game. Click on the deck of cards on the left to show the next card. Try to remember the sequence. There is no time limit but you can not go backward. After the ninth card, click on the next link to show up the nine cards in order. Then try to set them back in the right sequence. Once a card is dropped on a slot, you will not be able to move it again. Try as many time as you like by  hitting the  F5 key on Windows or  fn+F5 on Mac OS to update the page. Results are sent to a database. Your score will be shown at the bottom.

Thank you for your participation

XP1.0 Play Here